Info

Last Days in Vietnam: A Moral Dilemma

Experience the moral dilemmas facing both U.S. and South Vietnamese soldiers as the North Vietnamese Army closed in on Saigon in April 1975 in this video adapted from American Experience: Last Days in Vietnam. According to some of the 6,000 or so U.S. personnel remaining in South Vietnam, it was clear that the U.S. Embassy needed to plan for an evacuation of American personnel and the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who had worked closely with the U.S. during the war. Because the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam had refused to develop an evacuation plan for endangered South Vietnamese, several young officers in the embassy led “black ops”—operations that were against regulations—to evacuate as many South Vietnamese as possible. This resource is part of the American Experience: Last Days in Vietnam Collection.

The Vietnam War began shortly after Japan’s defeat in World War II, as a struggle between the French, who had returned to Vietnam to retain it as a colony, and communist-oriented nationalists, the Viet Minh, who demanded their independence. In 1954, the French were defeated in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. A peace treaty divided the country temporarily into two parts: the North, controlled from Hanoi by the nationalists, and the South, controlled from Saigon by factions who supported ongoing ties with the West. Elections to reunify the country, scheduled for 1956, never took place.

By the end of the decade, unrest in South Vietnam led to renewed conflict between guerrillas who supported the nationalists in Hanoi and the army of the non-communist government in the South. The former were referred to as the Viet Cong or the National Liberation Front (NLF), and the latter as the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). As part of the U.S. Cold War strategy to contain the spread of communism, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to the South. A succession of presidents—Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon—presided over an escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, turning a guerrilla struggle into a full-scale war that was shaped as much by Cold War politics as by the internal concerns of the Vietnamese. What began with 400 non-combat American advisors there grew to over 500,000 American troops by early 1969, with 2.7 million Americans ultimately serving in uniform. The decades-long conflict took the lives of more than 2 million people, among them nearly 60,000 Americans and more than a million Vietnamese civilians. At the same time, American society became increasingly polarized over U.S. involvement in this conflict.

Following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, the majority of U.S. combat forces left South Vietnam. However, despite the agreement, fighting continued among the Vietnamese factions. Without the U.S. forces to support them, the ARVN faced defeat in the face of an offensive in the spring of 1975 by troops from the North and their NLF allies throughout the South. In the weeks before Saigon fell to these forces, the situation was dire for those allied with the government of the South. On April 20, 1975, South Vietnam’s President Thieu resigned and fled the country. But the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, Graham Martin, still hoped that the factions could negotiate a settlement in which a neutral person could take Thieu’s vacated position. Martin refused to discuss the possibility of evacuating those threatened by a takeover by the communist government.

It was not just the U.S. diplomats, operatives, and support staff remaining in Saigon whose lives were at risk. Martin and other American officials feared a “bloodbath” if Saigon fell. They believed that many thousands of South Vietnamese who opposed the communists would be punished, jailed, or killed. Ambassador Martin’s inaction worried a number of young embassy, CIA, and State Department officers and prompted them to engage in “black operations” in an effort to evacuate as many at-risk South Vietnamese as possible. Against orders, they sneaked their South Vietnamese friends and allies out of the country aboard cargo flights to the Philippines and to ships in the Pacific Ocean, and even through an “underground railroad” of barges on the Saigon River. They took action knowing full well they were putting their careers on the line and could possibly face court-martial. They had determined that simply abandoning the men, women, and children whom they had worked with and befriended was not an option.

Many South Vietnamese, especially those in the military, also faced a moral dilemma: whether it was right to leave, having promised to defend South Vietnam when its people needed them the most. Yet staying meant they would be subject to arrest and punishment by the Hanoi regime. By April 30, evacuation operations ceased for good, and the communists took full control of South Vietnam. There was now one united Vietnam.

Here are suggested ways to engage students with this video and with activities related to this topic.

Before the activity: Have students engage in a class discussion based on a “What would you do?” question. For example: You know that the school rule is to not talk or pass notes in class, but in class you notice that your friend is missing a notebook. Would you help your friend by whispering or passing your notebook, or would you ignore your friend so that you do not get in trouble? Have students defend their opinions.

Viewing the video: Use the following suggestions to guide students' viewing of the video.

• Before watching: Ask students to reflect on the question, Is everything that is legal right and everything that is illegal wrong? Ask for a definition, or help students define the term “moral dilemma.”• While watching: Have students listen for the quote, “Sometimes, there’s an issue not of legal and illegal—but right or wrong.” Have them write down who said it, and what the author of the quote was implying.• After watching: Ask students if they agree that in some situations, it’s important to do what’s right, even though it might not be legal. Then, ask them what they hope they would have done in the same situation. Would they have developed a different plan? If so, what?• After watching: Explain to students that the Americans in the video knew that the “black operation” they were undertaking was not approved by their superiors. They knew that the movement was illegal and not in accordance with Vietnamese law. Ask students:

• Do you think that they should have stopped?• Captain Herrington said that this wasn’t about an action being “legal or illegal.” It was about being “right or wrong.” What do you think?

• After watching: Captain Herrington said that his friends in the South Vietnamese military were “dead men walking” in April 1975. What did he mean? What is another use of that phrase? Is it apt here?

Doing a small-group activity: Reflecting on the action (or inaction) of different Americans described in the video, have students role-play their decision-making processes. What might someone say who was defending Ambassador Martin’s policy? How would Captain Herrington justify his behavior? How might others weigh their decisions as to whether to take illegal action?